2007-06-07 13:09:11 PDT -- California cities and counties have broad authority to decide where stores can be located, the state Supreme Court ruled today in a case that boosts local efforts to exclude "big-box" retailers such as Wal-Mart.

The unanimous decision upheld an ordinance in the city of Hanford (Kings County) that actually favored big department stores, including Wal-Mart, Sears and Home Deport, by allowing them to sell furniture in a particular shopping mall while banning smaller furniture stores.

The city's legitimate goals, the court said, were to preserve a thriving group of furniture stores in downtown Hanford by limiting stores in other areas, and to promote economic development elsewhere in the city by attracting major retailers.

But the court also made it clear that elected officials are entitled to decide what kind of commercial development they prefer in particular areas, regardless of whether big-box stores are allowed or excluded and even if the effect is to restrict competition.

As long as the main goal is a "legitimate public purpose," such as preserving a downtown business district, rather than protecting or punishing a particular company, the ordinance "reasonably relates to the general welfare of a municipality," Chief Justice Ronald George said.

The court expressly endorsed the conclusion of an appellate ruling last year that upheld a Turlock law halting Wal-Mart's plans to build a discount supercenter that included a full-sized grocery store. Turlock officials said their goal was to preserve neighborhood shopping centers that would be threatened by the retail giant.

Wal-Mart, which unsuccessfully challenged the Turlock ordinance, has estimated that 20 cities and counties in Northern California have passed measures to limit or block its stores.

San Francisco, Oakland and Martinez have banned big-box stores. Alameda County supervisors repealed a ban in unincorporated areas, but adopted a more limited measure in March 2006 that requires those retailers to describe the effect of new stores on the local economy and disclose employees' pay and benefits.

Today's ruling "will affect all battles in California where Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers are trying to force their way into cities that don't want them," said Steven Mayer, a lawyer for Hanford.

Thomas Brown, a lawyer for associations of city and county governments, said the ruling was a victory for representative government. The court recognized, he said, that elected officials, and not judges, should decide "what uses make most sense in different parts of the city."